11 BILLION Alejandro Morris asked: Hans Rosling, a well-known Swedish statistician, stated that based on decreasing fertility rates and advances in agriculture, it's predicted that by 2100 the world population will plateau at 11 billion. Paul Erhlich, do you still maintain that world population will be a major problem?Tell us what you think on the Q&A Facebook page

POPULATION POLICY ATROCITIES Adriana Zaja asked: Paul Erhlich, do you regret urging developed countries to use their political power to coerce vulnerable countries into drastic population control programs, having heard of the human atrocities in India and China? Tell us what you think on the Q&A Facebook page

AUSTRALIA’S POPULATION Phillip Balding asked: Australia has 23 million people, not much water, and a bit of space. Do you think we are overpopulated? Or at least, at what stage do we consider small-family policies?Tell us what you think on the Q&A Facebook page

NATIONAL ANTHEM Peter Geary asked: I believe our National Anthem, “Advance Australia Fair” is indeed part of our National Heritage and I am proud to be part of it. For the Victorian Education Department to allow school students to excuse themselves from singing our National Anthem, because of a religious month of mourning, is disrespectful and not a good example to students. Will this incident set a precedent for our future?Tell us what you think on the Q&A Facebook page

GONSKI a Lila Mularczyk asked: Minister Birmingham, you and your predecessor have proposed that extra money delivered by Gonski in some states is not making a difference. In NSW where the State government is delivering the Gonski school funding to schools according to the principles of Gonski, the evidence and narratives flooding in from schools is showing that the targeted funding is making a significant and positive difference for students most in need. Would you accept an invitation to our schools to see what is being achieved already? And will you meet with the families that fear the life changing gains of targeted Gonski funding will not be delivered by your government after 2017? Will you commit to finding years 5 and 6? Tell us what you think on the Q&A Facebook page

BAMBOO CEILING Ivy Chung asked: With surveys showing that only 18% of Asian talents feel their workplace is free of cultural biases and stereotypes. What does Asia mean to Australia? When will the Australian workforce get serious about promoting a truly merit-based culture rather than a culture that is based on skin colour?Tell us what you think on the Q&A Facebook page

QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR An audience member asked: I’m an international student who’s been in Australia for a few years. We love Australia we want a diverse Australia but we are focusing too much on the differences. I think we should be focusing on our similarities. What do you think? Tell us what you think on the Q&A Facebook page

OUR PANEL’S SCHOOL DAYS Ken Silburn asked: We’ve all been to school. Can the panel reflect on schooling when they were young? Was it good or bad? Did it prepare you for what you are doing now? What would you like it to be like for your kids?Tell us what you think on the Q&A Facebook page

TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and here to answer your questions tonight: journalist, author, broadcaster and publisher Wendy Harmer; the new Minister for Education, Simon Birmingham; ecologist Paul Ehrlich, who is best known for his controversial warnings on population growth; businesswoman and founder of the Diverse Australasian Women's Network, Dai Le; and the Shadow Minister for Finance, Tony Burke. Please welcome our panel. As always, there’s a great deal to talk about, many questions. Let's go to our first one. It's from Allan Forno.

GSTALLAN FORNO: Thank you, Tony. Minister sorry, Shadow Minister, if the Labor Party is so opposed to the increase of GST, what do you have in store to balance the books?

TONY BURKE: Thank you. At the moment, there’s three things that we've put down, which is more, at this stage in the cycle, than you would normally find from an Opposition. The first is to abolish the Direct Action Fund that the Government has got. The second is our policy on multinational tax avoidance and the third is high-income tax - so high-income superannuation tax concessions. You put those together, it's more than $23 billion across the Forward Estimates, in the order of about $25 billion. That's a down payment and there will be more that we will put forward.

TONY JONES: It is actually a very small down payment, in actual fact, isn’t it, compared to what you need to come up with to fund education, health and the National Disability Insurance Scheme?

TONY BURKE: Well, let's go through those. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was fully funded when it was brought in. Gonski funding, when you look at the final budget papers that we brought in, we had all the saves that were there. What the Government then did on Gonski funding was they abolished the funding for years five and six, but wanted us to vote for the savings measures to pay for it anyway. So that's the way that those measures have gone. On the GST itself, why don't we support it? Because it's regressive. It's unfair. The moment you talk about the GST, people then have a million different things they’re going to spend it on but the truth is if you do the compensation the right way, most of the money is gone already. When Peter Costello introduced the GST with the compensation, it actually cost the Budget $20 billion.

TONY JONES: Quick one. Are you going to run the line, “This is a great big tax on everything?” I think we might have heard that before?

TONY BURKE: It is a tax that hurts people that can least afford it, that's what it does and, by definition, that's what it does. And, you know, you don't talk about needing compensation for a tax policy on multinational tax avoidance. You don't talk about needing compensation when you do something about top end superannuation tax concessions, because they’re already targeted at people who can afford it. The GST hits people simply because they are spending.

TONY JONES: All right, Dai Le, wants to come in.

DAI LE: Can I say, I suppose when the GST got first - was first introduced or after John Hewson, I think there wasn't that much fear out there and I think it was quite accepted within the community. I think, from my perspective, you know, as the Prime Minister said, we have to put it on the table and I think, for me, who is championing cultural diverse communities, I think one of the things that we need to do is consult with those communities in terms of the impact of potential increase in GST could have.

TONY JONES: We should remember it’s John Howard that brought it in. John Hewson proposed it then...

DAI LE: Proposed it so but there was a backlash and then, of course...

TONY JONES: That’s true.

DAI LE: ...when it came - when John Howard introduced it there wasn't not, you know, much of an issue.

TONY JONES: I want to hear from the Minister, Simon Birmingham. The GST could solve a lot of your economic problems if you increase it, I should say, to 15%, which is what’s being talked about at the moment.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, Tony, the GST is just one part of an overall tax reform question that needs to be considered and when you’re looking at tax reform, it's not done to try to necessarily increase revenue per se, but have a look at how it is that you can raise revenue most effectively and efficiently in a way that encourages Australians to work more, encourages business to invest more, they’re the types of things you want from a well-structured tax system and so your starting point in any talk about increasing the GST is indeed, as Tony alluded to, recognising that you have to make sure that lower income Australians aren't any worse off. So were it to happen, you would have to lift pensions. You would have to ensure that those on low incomes, particularly those who are paying relatively small amounts of income tax, are compensated through the system, but you want to make sure that, overall, you're getting a more efficient tax system that is encouraging business to invest or people to work more hours which, of course, is about potentially bringing down income tax rates. So that's really the genesis of why there is a conversation about tax.

TONY JONES: Simon, off the top of your head, can you think of any other tax increase that would actually pay for what you need to spend on health, on education and on the National Insurance Disability Scheme, three of the really big spending items that become much more expensive a couple of years down the track?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: They are expensive reforms, a number of these areas, particularly the NDIS and I would really, really take issue with Tony's claim that all of these measures were completely funded by the previous Government. We all know that there was a big deficit left in place and no real pathway to surplus and that's something that we've been grappling with as a government since, is how to rein in some areas of government spending to be able to pay for other priorities, to pay for a priority like a National Disability Insurance Scheme and to make sure that it's sustainable for the long haul, which is why you have a discussion about whether you reduce some areas of welfare spending, particularly middle class welfare spending, rein that in a bit so you can spend more on helping people through disability insurance. Getting your spending priorities right.

TONY JONES: Or raise the GST by 5% to 15% and possibly broaden it, as well, which is now a pretty active option, is it not?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, there are certainly those arguing that you could spend some form of tax reform revenue on areas such as NDIS or education or health, but I really think the starting premise from a tax reform question is not about more revenue. It’s about making sure the tax system is efficient as possible and about making sure really important to emphasise this, making sure poorer Australians are not worse off as a result.

TONY JONES: So are we in the phase of the debate where you don't mention the three letters GST?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: No. No, Tony. I think, I mean, the great thing about the way Malcolm Turnbull is governing and Scott Morrison is adopting the Treasurer's role is we're all happily talking about the fact that we’ve got to have these discussions on GST...

TONY JONES: So what is that thing called that you might put up 15%?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: I mentioned GST in the first answer, I think you will find, Tony. So we're very happy to talk about all of these issues and, of course, whatever reforms are taken will be taken to the next election. So people will get to have their say, there will be proper consultation on any tax reform measures and people will be able to have a look at how it all stacks up. And, of course, in relation to multinational tax avoidance, we’re actually taking real action there already. And in relation to high-income superannuation earners, we’ve been open that that is something that will be looked at as part of the tax reform process, as well. So we are not jumping away from any of these issues that are up for debate. We are honestly recognising that if you want to have a high performing tax system that allows us to be able to fund expensive areas like disability insurance and education and health, but also be economically competitive, you've got to have the right tax mix and we're not globally competitive in that mix at the moment.

TONY JONES: All right. Wendy Harmer, looking wryly at you.

WENDY HARMER: Well, I see a lot of older Australians here tonight in the audience and they must be looking at us right now and thinking, "What the hell happened?" How come this country, the richest country, one of the richest countries on Earth with this amazing population cannot afford to pay for education, for health, for penalty rates, for all the necessities of life? Where the hell did we go wrong? Now, it’s - to me it's about that we've sold off the farm, we've privatised everything. We've let the free marketeers in, we've jacked up the prices and now you're going to tell us how much tax we’re tax we’re going to pay and you are going to come back with a begging bowl over and over again.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: We only ever paid - Wendy, I don't know if you missed it, but governments have only ever paid for health and education and pensions and everything through tax. That's the way governments raise their revenue.

WENDY HARMER: Yeah, but - yes, but it was always that we could afford it. The difference is now we can't afford anything anymore. We can't afford a road without a toll, we can't afford to build anything without private enterprise. There is nothing left that we can use to raise capital. I sound like an old fashioned socialist, don't I? And I think most of the older people here can remember that time and, as I say, wonder where we went wrong.

TONY JONES: Okay. I’m going to bring in Paul Ehrlich. Listening to this, I mean, in America you’d call this a sales tax. I think they have different ones that you mentioned.

PAUL EHRLICH: Yeah, it’s a request of a standard right wing regressive tax trying to keep - what you're doing is following Ronald Reagan's famous Hood Robin program. You know about the Hood Robin program? You steal from the poor and give to the rich. You know, it’s - let me say something nice about Australia. You still have a more equitable society than we have but you’ve got to watch yourselves. In other words, you've got to think about redistribution. You've got to think about runaway population growth, where in the US and/or Australia you can't keep the infrastructure up with the people coming in and so on.

TONY JONES: We’re going to come to that issue and I know it's one of your favourite topics, Paul/

PAUL EHRLICH: All right.

TONY JONES: But, Simon, we appear to have flanked you with two people who have very different views on the GST.

PAUL EHRLICH: I feel sorry for him.

WENDY HARMER: He’ll cope. He’ll cope.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: No, no, no. I’ll be fine.

TONY JONES: Are any of those a fair description of the GST?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: I'm not sure. Well, I don't think Wendy really went to the GST at all. Wendy's was a generalist point. Paul's point, if you implemented a GST without compensating measures, then, yes, it would have a risk of being regressive. That's a simple fact, which is why you have to make sure that if you were...

WENDY HARMER: But if it's a fair tax, why are you compensating people?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Which is why you have to make sure that if you’re increasing it, because it’s a more efficient tax to collect, because it is a tax that might allow us to be more globally competitive at getting more investment, all of those reasons that you might do it, then you would increase pensions.

WENDY HARMER: And we still have to work until we're 70? We still have to work until we’re 70. Is that still on the thing?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Wendy, when we set the pension age, we didn't used to live ‘til we were 70. I’m sure Paul would back that up.

TONY JONES: He certainly would. No, remember, if you hear any doubtful claims on Q&A, send a tweet use the hashtags #factcheck and #qanda and keep an eye on our Twitter account for the resulting fact checks. Our next question comes from Alejandro Morris.

11 BILLIONALEJANDRO MORRIS: Hi. Yeah, this is for Paul Ehrlich. Hans Rosling, a well known Swedish statistician, stated that, based on decreasing fertility rates and advances in agriculture, it's predicted that by 2100 the world population will plateau at 11 billion. Do you still maintain that the world population will be a major problem?

PAUL EHRLICH: I don't maintain it will be. It’s already is a major problem. For example, even though there are some people who would claim that - professional deniers of climate change and the danger in climate change and their pimps in the fossil fuel industry, if you think about it for a minute, every person you add to the planet releases more CO2. When they release more CO2, it is a bigger threat not just to sea level rise. Everybody thinks sea level rise is the big thing about climate change. Actually, no. Our agricultural system is utterly dependent on the distribution, quality, timing of rainfall. All that's changing. We’re already seeing changes in the productivity of the basic grains we depend on. So each person you add needs more food, contributes more greenhouse gases, which increases the assault on agriculture, which has to be spread, the agricultural system already supplies something on the order of 30% of the greenhouse gases. So there’s just one little example where things are synergising and we are setting our kids up for even worse problems.

TONY JONES: So, Paul, can I just interrupt you?

PAUL EHRLICH: No, I don't like to be interrupted, actually.

TONY JONES: I know that but that’s...

TONY BURKE: What were you thinking?

TONY JONES: I know that earlier on you said I could do that.

PAUL EHRLICH: Yes, right.

TONY JONES: So I'm going to do it. To hell with that. You have actually maintained, I think, there is a 90% chance that our civilisation will collapse within 50 years. How do you get to that?

PAUL EHRLICH: Well, that is a gut feeling and the reason it’s a gut feeling is you can't deal with the discontinuities. In other words, you can see the general trends but many people, me included, but people who look at it more closely than I do, think the chances of a nuclear war between US and the Russians is bigger now than it was during most of the Cold War. They think there is an even bigger chance of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan and there that war itself, using maybe 215 kilotonne bombs, would destroy Australia and the US as a civilisation. Who can guess what the odds are on those. You get scared. But on the general trend, I think we will be very, very fortunate to avoid a collapse and Anne and I estimated 10%. Jim Brown, who is an energy expert and the world's greatest biogeographer said, "You’re crazy. There’s only a 1% chance of avoiding a collapse when you look at things like energy return on investment and so on.” Nobody knows. Jim is willing to work to make it a 1.1% chance. Anne and I are willing to work to make it an 11% chance, but I must say, when I watch the Republican debates, I'm converging on Jim.

TONY JONES: Now, you have been wrong a few times in the past, Paul. You’d admit, wouldn't you?

PAUL EHRLICH: Look, any scientist or anyone who has talked about the future and is never been wrong wouldn't be sitting on this show

TONY JONES: Can I just mention one to you. 1971 you said, “By the year 2000, the UK will be a small group of impoverished islands inhabited by 70 million hungry people”. Was that just wishful thinking?

PAUL EHRLICH: No, they’re just not hungry but otherwise it’s accurate. The thing that we’re most accused of...

PAUL EHRLICH: But if you ask me where I’ve been most wrong it was accepted the agricultural economists’ estimates that the green revolution would not be adopted rapidly by farmers. It was adopted rapidly, particularly by rich farmers. It is today nobody is sure whether it was a good thing or not. It's much disputed. We were told that the worst thing we said by the way, some of the predictions in The Population Bomb were clearly labelled as scenarios not to come true in the future. But we said the battle to feed all of humanity is over and they said that's dead wrong. It's dead wrong. 800 million 795 million people hungry today. About 300 million starved.

TONY JONES: I have got to come to another question.

PAUL EHRLICH: Okay.

TONY JONES: Because there are some people questioning come to another questioning....

PAUL EHRLICH: You’ve got shills out there. That's great.

TONY JONES: No, they’re not shills. These are people asking questions. Adriana Zaja.

POLICY ATROCITIESADRIANA ZAJA: Hi. My question is for Paul Ehrlich. Do you have any regrets about urging developed countries to use their political power to coerce vulnerable countries into drastic population control programs, having heard of the atrocities in India and China?

PAUL EHRLICH: Yes, definitely. If I were writing the - if Anne and I were writing The Population Bomb again today, we’d write it differently. Sometimes you make mistakes. I think that was a mistake. I don't think the - the recent thing that the are you going to have a question later on the Chinese policy?

TONY JONES: No, please, you can go on. I’m not trying to censor what you say here.

PAUL EHRLICH: No, no, no. That’s all right. I think the main problem with the Chinese stopping, I think, their one child family program is the moral hazard one, that is the Chinese it is not going to increase their family size very much. We know now that in the past they probably would have gotten to the same place if they had not had the relatively coercive program. It is still much debated. But some of the things we did not recommend. We said these are the sorts of things that have been suggested or could be done. A good example is we said in one of our publications that it would be one of the things that might be good if you could do it safely and biologically safely would be to add something to the water supply - excuse my laryngitis - add something to the water supply that would make you have to take an antidote before you can have a baby and everybody say, "That's just terrible. That is ghastly." Ghastly? It would get rid of the whole abortion problem. It would get rid of the whole unwanted child problem, make people make rational decisions. It is certainly one of the things that every government must pay great attention to is the size and composition of its population. It’s probably the number one thing that should be in government policy. It at least discussed in Australia. In the United States, you can't even dare discuss it. We talk policy on immigration without saying how many people we want to have in the country. In other words it's like telling somebody, "Design yourself an aeroplane that will load 100 people a minute", and you way, “Well, how many is it going to fly with?” “ Oh, don't worry about that. We just want to know how many - you know, load 100 people a minute”. End of rant.

TONY JONES: But those immigrants, Paul, have to come from somewhere, so they would be using up resources in another country, wouldn’t they? They’d be breathing the air and drinking the water and using the electricity.

PAUL EHRLICH: The big with people coming into the US is they become super rich and the big problem in the world isn't too many poor people, it's too many super rich people.

TONY JONES: Okay.

PAUL EHRLICH: Like, the whole immigration issue, as you certainly have seen in Australia and you are seeing in Europe now, is one of the most ethically charged issues we face as humanity and we're not facing it as humanity. Just think of this question: Are borders ethical? The distribution of resources around the planet is kind of random. People are everywhere. Are borders ethical? Shouldn't we be discussing the entire issue of where people are, when they should be able to move and how you handle it?

TONY JONES: Well, I just make one point. That is, you open the US borders, your population would be even bigger than 300 million. But, anyway, Wendy Harmer wants to jump in.

WENDY HARMER: Actually, I was talking to Paul about that. I remember some years ago reading a textbook which came up with this thought that if the entire world's population was housed at the density of Hong Kong, then the entire world's population could fit on Tasmania and Paul said that was about right.

TONY JONES: Yeah, but it would be the end of the orange bellied parrot so I really wouldn’t like it.

TONY BURKE: All my World Heritage areas would be gone.

TONY JONES: I’m just going to bring the...

WENDY HARMER: But it's kind of interesting, isn’t it, I mean, to think about how creative we could be with housing people. That's what I mean.

TONY JONES: I find it hard to imagine 7.5 billion people living in Tasmania, but it would be a more interesting place, that's for sure. Let's bring the population issue closer to home.

WENDY HARMER: Oh, Tony.

PAUL EHRLICH: (Indistinct) rides again.

WENDY HARMER: Tony.

TONY JONES: Who could deny that? It certainly would be interesting. Closer to home with a question from Phillip Balding.

AUSTRALIA’S POPULATION PHILLIP BALDING: Australia has 23 million people, not much water and a bit of space. Do you think we’re overpopulated? And, at least, at what stage should we consider having small family policies?

TONY JONES: I will go to Tony Burke first. I will come back to you in a minute, Paul.

PAUL EHRLICH: Yeah, sure.

TONY JONES: I want to hear from the other panellists.

TONY BURKE: Well, I don't think we’re overpopulated but I also - I differ from Paul on the emphasis and some of this gets to common ground but the emphasis on number of people. The principal issue for capacity of the planet and the planet does have capacity constraints is the way we live, that's the principal issue and what matters for Australia I mean, water, the classic example was having to redesign how we would deal with the Murray Darling Basin. It was possible for the Murray Darling to be sustainable, but we weren't doing it that way. In the same way as with pollution it's possible to have a limit and a cap on pollution. We had one legislated a couple of years ago, it's not there now. The way we live is a sustainability issue, and I think every time we get down to number of people being the issue, we keep missing the point.

TONY JONES: Can I just bring you back to the population question thought? Kevin Rudd, your former prime minister talked about a big Australia. Does the current Labor Party have a kind of concept of how big it could be, population wise?

TONY BURKE: "No", and the - I had the portfolio. We had a special episode on this program about it when I was working through the issues and, initially, I had an instinct towards saying, well, let's have targets for different parts of Australia, but every time you worked through the issues, what would make an impact environmentally, number of people wasn't the challenge. It was whether or not you were using sustainable energy, whether or not you were using your water efficiently, whether or not you were living in sustainably designed housing. Those were the issues, and the challenge for Australia is a whole lot of the steps that we took over the last few years towards those issues is starting to unravel and that means, yes, you could end up with a situation where we can't sustain a larger population as population continues to grow, but the smart thing to do is to live sustainably, and that involves setting some limits which, over the last two years in Australia, are limits that have been abolished.

TONY JONES: Okay. Dai Le?

DAI LE: I think, you know, I think listening to you, Tony, I think the politics needs to be taken out of it when it comes to discussing population and sustainability and I agree. At my place we have solar panels. I'm very much a believer of renewable energy and so, for me, the population we need to definitely grow, because we have an ageing population. I listen to Paul and I'm thinking does it mean that we don't grow anymore? Like you don't want people, you know, to give birth and migration stop? So where would that put us as human race? So in terms of population growth, we need to grow it, you know, with some sustainability policies in place, but I think both sides of politics have to come together and put aside some of those political differences and work towards building Australia into a prosperous nation and, you know, with proper population policies.

TONY JONES: Simon?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Look, I think I mean, I broadly agree with Tony in the concept that, of course, water which he and I have both spent a lot of time working on in public policy terms, other sustainable resources how, of course, we grow our agricultural production so that we can feed not just our population but, of course, as a net exporter of food, feed many more people in our region and around the world, they are all the questions of how you best deal with population pressures. But there’s another factor as well.

TONY JONES: I will just bring you - I’ll bring you to the actual question, which was: do you think we’re overpopulated or, at least, at what stage should we consider small family policies? That was the question.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, I don't think Australia is overpopulated and I don't think there is any need in Australia to consider small family policies because, in the end, we as a country, have relatively low birth rates and we of course, are a striking example of how you achieve that and that is you have a prosperous economy with well-educated populations and particularly well educated women in the workforce, and that is what tends to keep your population down. That's what's happened in China. You know, that's really what has driven profound change there. Lifting of educational standards, lifting of employment and economic opportunity, and that's what changes population mixes, and it has been shown time and time again and so the real battle is actually you do need to lift people out of poverty and you do need to get them into economic circumstances in the workforce because that's when they tend to actually self-regulate when it comes to population.

TONY JONES: Here’s what Malcolm Turnbull said in his maiden speech: Demography is destiny. America's global leadership is reinforced by its strong population. You have to say large population. Does Australia need to get bigger to achieve its destiny?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: I don't think Australia needs to get bigger. We make decisions in Australia about our population. We already regulate that because of the way our immigration policies work. So governments choose to grow the population of Australia by taking more migrants in and that's an essential part, given the nature of our birth rate. So we can make wise decisions year in, year out, about how many people we can successfully resettle, what is sustainable in terms of the size of our cities, the use of our natural resources, the economic and employment opportunities available to them. All of those rational decisions are made, frankly by governments of both persuasions in terms of how our population grows, and that's the way we should manage it.

TONY JONES: Wendy, apart from putting 7.5 billion people on Tasmania, do you think we need a bigger country?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: What about the mainland?

WENDY HARMER: Well, we could all - see, the thing is we could all go on holiday to the mainland then instead of anyway. I'm loving seeing Malcolm Turnbull have this emphasis on cities and how we do things. This is really where the - you know, the engine is, the powerhouse is and I don't know how many of you live next to people, but certainly I have done in the northern beaches where they say, "No high rise! No high rise!" But are quite happy to see the, you know, well, the consequence of that is to see the bush mown down and in Melbourne this - there was a big report on it the other day, this terrible situation where all the market gardens and, you know, the food bowl is being swallowed up by housing. So, and we do rely on the housing sector, of course, to push growth, but I've always thought it is a pretty blunt instrument the way it is. So, I think this idea of talking about cities and how innovative they can be and how we can go up and infill and do things smarter are well overdue conversation and I think Lucy Turnbull would be fantastic to head that up, just quietly.

TONY JONES: Okay. I’m going to bring Paul back in. So, you've been listening politely to the conversation as it is going around the table.

PAUL EHRLICH: Mostly nonsense, unfortunately.

TONY JONES: So the question was do you think we’re overpopulated?

PAUL EHRLICH: Yeah, I mean there’s no question about it. Talk to your ecologists. Talk to Corey - Corey Bradshaw and I just wrote a book called Killing The Koala and Poisoning the Prairies, which is a comparison of the US and Australia’s very successful war on the environment. You’re destroying your life support systems here. You’re working at it really hard. You are also working to become a Third World country, because your specialisation, of course, is to take your raw materials, like your coal, which are going to destroy the world of your grandchildren and great grandchildren, and ship as much of it unprocessed as you possibly can out to the rest of the world. A pile of coal that Australia shifts annually would be about the size of that thing there extending that way all the way around the world and back to here, that's how much coal you dig out of the ground even though every scientist in the world knows we should stop burning it as fast as we possibly can. If you want a sustainable society, you can look to Australia. The Aborigines have the longest term sustainable society on the planet, until we came along, of course, and kind of screwed it up. But they went through 40, 50,000 years of great changes and so on, managed to survive, kept their numbers reasonable. By the way, you’re quite correct. If you want to solve the population problem, give women equal rights everywhere in the world. Give them equal opportunities. Give them access to modern contraception. Give them access to safe backup abortion and the odds are that you will start to slow population...

WENDY HARMER: Because, what, we will never have sex with men again?

PAUL EHRLICH: They have sex with men? Oh, God, I wish you’d had told me earlier. Anyway. By the way, the age...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: That is one thing we’ll agree on tonight, Paul.

PAUL EHRLICH: The ageing issue is very popular with idiotic politicians in Europe. They think that because there are as an ageing population they've got to have imports or higher birth rates in order to keep the population young. There is only one way that you can keep the population relatively young and that is to keep it growing forever. It is the motto, of course, of the faith based economic system where all buried in. A very famous economist, Balding, Kenneth Balding, said in 1966, "Anyone who thinks you can have perpetual growth on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist." You are going to have to stop growth. Look, you’ve got a brilliant businessman in Australia who has been telling you this for years, Dick Smith. You know, he says big Australia is a crock, which, of course, it is. We’re already overpopulated here and this is partly my country. But Dick gets out and says you’ve got to design an economic system that doesn't grow and he is absolutely right and there are some economists - sorry, I shouldn't say Dick Smith is absolutely right here, yeah.

DAI LE: So who will pay for our taxes? Who will pay for our taxes?

TONY JONES: No, no, I didn't say that at all. I just wanted to move onto other subjects because we will come back to climate change and other issues but you’re watching Q&A. Let’s move along. The next question comes from Peter Geary.

NATIONAL ANTHEMPETER GEARY: Yes, I believe our national anthem, Advance Australia Fair, is indeed part of our national heritage and I am proud to be part of it. For the Victorian Education Department to allow school students to excuse themselves from singing our national anthem because of a religious month of mourning is disrespectful and not a good example to students. Will this incident set a precedent for our future?

TONY JONES: Dai Le, we will start with you?

DAI LE: Look, I think I'm a new Australian, if you can call it that. I came here from Vietnam as a refugee and I have embraced Australia, and I love singing the Australian anthem. I think it was a mistake, from my perspective, by the school not to include these children into the Australian - celebrating Australian, you know, way of life. At the same time, we need to acknowledge the children had to mourn and I'm sure there was a period that they could mourn in that period, but I think the school made a mistake, and I think it set a precedent, and I think it will divide the community which, as somebody of refugee background, I want Australia to accept my heritage, my culture, but at the same time I also embrace Australia and the Australian culture way of life, and I'm sure some people in the audience would disagree with me on that, however, I think no, they should have included the children into the song.

TONY JONES: Let's go to Tony Burke and we should mention this. What actually happened here. The school principal excused Shia Muslim students from singing the anthem if they were observing Muslims' month of mourning in which the Shia don't join in joyful celebrations such as singing. Was that wrong or not?

TONY BURKE: First thing, since that time a number of Shia clerics, including one I met with in my own local area last Friday, but a number of them have gone out publicly and said they understand what the school was trying to do, but it was, in fact, unnecessary. So, no one should take this as it has sort of infiltrated out through public conversation as somehow this is a broad Islamic principle that they can't be there for the national anthem. And also remember, for the parents who made that particular decision and, you know, the senior clerics are saying they got it wrong, but they still made the decision on the basis that they viewed our national anthem as something incredibly joyful. You know, it was a good understanding of the national anthem that was there and we shouldn't start to try to shift this as though this was a community that was being all dark on the national anthem. No, they were acknowledging that this is a really joyful part of Australia and at this point they were in mourning. So, I think the debate has got to something that it shouldn't have got to. There was a particular decision made that senior clerics have said, "No, got that wrong." The decision was made for the best possible intentions and I suspect it's unlikely to happen again. But I don't think there is any reason for us to all get angry when I'm not saying you are, sir, but around Australia, there has been a lot of anger over this for people who were all acting from the best intentions.

DAI LE: I think it’s a school responsibility, the school's fault and I think the principal. I don't think the children should be actually be the blame for this, that community, because I'm sure, like me, you know, they've called Australia home and, you know, I sing the national anthem every day every week every day every week at my council, so I sing it proudly.

TONY JONES: You don't get up in the morning and sing it?

DAI LE: No.

TONY JONES: Wendy Harmer?

WENDY HARMER: Well, I'm into a bit of soft diplomacy here, I guess. I think that there has been a lot of talk about forcing children to sing the national anthem, which is just absurd obviously. But I think that if we - it's also incumbent upon us to live up to the ideals of the national anthem so everybody who comes here wants to sing it because it is the most best song for the best country on earth. So it is a two - it’s a two way thing, I think.

TONY JONES: Do you really think it’s the best song?

WENDY HARMER: Well, I mean but really that you want to sing it and you are really proud to sing of it. It is a bit of a dirge, okay. No one can remember the second verse.

TONY BURKE: The second verse is the best. The second verse is fantastic.

WENDY HARMER: But you get a bit of a tingle when you sing it and I really do think, you know, as I say, if we talk about soft diplomacy here and, you know, we love our country and we sing it, everyone who is here want to the sing it with us.

TONY BURKE: Can I say, I know you’re going to throw...

TONY JONES: Well, you can but I want to hear from Simon, who is the Education Minister, so it has something to do with schools.

TONY BURKE: Yeah, sorry.

TONY JONES: Lets him from him.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Thanks, Tony. I mean, I think every Australian school child should, of course, learn to sing the national anthem and I would hope, exactly as Wendy put it, that every Australian school child is enthusiastic, as I hope every Australian is: enthusiastic, and proud and energised about singing the national anthem. Not because they agree with everything that's happening in Australia at a given point in time but because, overall, we are a great country. We’re a lucky country. We’re a country with an awful lot going for us that a lot of other countries don't have and rightly envy, so we should hope that people do. That said, to this specific case, you know, if there is a legitimate reason in terms of somebody's faith, whether it's of Islamic faith or Jewish faith or Christian faith or anything else, that for a few days or a few weeks of the year it's not appropriate for them to join in singing or other types of activities, then we should respect that. The school in those sorts of circumstances should make sure the school community understand it and has it explained to them and that they are equally respectful of each other's faiths and perspectives because, frankly, that's one of the things that has made Australia the great country it is, that respect for different faiths and perspectives, that people like Dai, of different backgrounds and races who have come here - we’re an incredibly successful experiment, bringing people all over the world to this country. Our anthem should be a celebration of that. In singing the anthem, we should respect it. Now, ultimately as Tony says, in his electorate...

TONY JONES: Do I suspect a slightly different tone coming from the new Cabinet?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Tony, I'm sure Christopher Pyne would have said the same things that I just said in relation to this issue. Ultimately...

TONY JONES: Could you think of other people in your Cabinet who might not have that sort of more moderate view?

TONY BURKE: They’re not in Cabinet anymore.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: I think the matter, once you have the facts before you and, of course, Tony just gave a particularly important explanation.

WENDY HARMER: Are you okay, actually, Simon? Are you fine?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: The heart is beating strong, rest assured. Tony gave a good explanation of the fact that perhaps it was a mistake, because, in fact, perhaps it was not in teaching with those of a Shia Muslim background to need to absent themselves from singing the anthem. So, hopefully that is the lesson has been learnt, if that’s the case. I’m not at the...

WENDY HARMER: But you could always recite it. You don’t need to necessarily sing.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, that's true. You could go and do some other celebration of our country that’s perhaps not as joyful as singing our "girt by sea" anthem.

WENDY HARMER: Australians all let us...

TONY JONES: All right, all right, that’s enough. Star Spangled Banner, did you have to sing that when you were at school?

PAUL EHRLICH: We did but we didn't have child abuse required in those days. We didn't have any religious instructions in the schools. But you've got to face something. For our entire history, not matter - even if you go back five million years, we have been a small group animal.

TONY JONES: Did you say religious instruction is child abuse?

PAUL EHRLICH: Richard Dawkins and lots of other people have said that. Of course, you teach people details about non existent supernatural monsters and then behave in reaction to what you think they are telling you, that's child abuse. You don't raise your kids that way. But...

TONY JONES: Okay. Quickly back to the (indistinct)...

PAUL EHRLICH: I don’t want to be outrageous, but let me say...

TONY JONES: Yes, you do.

PAUL EHRLICH: You have to - but you have to respect people who want to do that because we’re a small group animal.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: That sounded very respectful.

PAUL EHRLICH: We, on average, for our entire history have associated with about 150 other people, and now after millions of years of doing that, we are a very social animal. We've got to learn to live in groups of millions and billions, which means, as you point - as everybody has sort of pointed out, you've got to give some space for other people or you are going to be in a constant war and so it's something we ought to be discussing all the time. It's really difficult for us to live in groups of millions in Australia and the United States, billions in the world, and so we have to face that. Other people are going to have different views. You've got to respect them as long as they’re not trying to tread on you in some way. You know, what difference does it make to any of us whether those kids sing the national anthem?

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. The next question comes from Lila Mularczyk.

GONSKILILA MULARCZYK: Thank you. Minister Birmingham, you and your predecessor have proposed that the extra money delivered by Gonski in some states is not making a difference. In New South Wales, where the State Government is delivering the Gonski school funding to schools according to the principles of Gonski, the evidence and narratives flooding in from schools is showing that targeted funding is absolutely making a significant and positive difference for students most in need. So, Minister, I ask you, would you accept an invitation to our schools to see what is already being achieved? And will you meet with the families that fear that life changing gains of targeted Gonski funding will not be delivered by your government after 2017? Will you commit to funding years five and six?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Thanks, Lila for the question. Firstly, I've not said that current spend something not making a difference. What I have observed is that over the last decade or two we've spent a lot more in school education over that time and we have seen many of our international ratings and comparisons go backwards in that time. And so you've got to make sure that when you’re spending more, you’re actually getting more value for money, most importantly better outcomes from the students there. So that's the first point that I think is really important to make. In terms of your invitation to go and visit a school, this afternoon I was at Alexandria Park Community School here in Sydney with Adrian Piccoli, the Education Minister, with the principal and other officials talking about exactly what they are doing with the extra money, because I do want to understand what they’re doing on the ground, get a sense of how and if it is making a difference and, if it is making a difference, then, of course, that should inform future policy decisions. So, when you ask a question about years five and six of Gonski, well, my view is and I’ve sat down, as well, in the job, with David Gonski to talk to him about his report and the model he came up with, which is not exactly as was implemented by the previous government, but David acknowledges that, but he has got a lot of good advice to give, I don't want to look at two years of funding now, because we’re four years down the track essentially, running out to 2017 when the current funding arrangement concludes. I want to have a look at what we do beyond that. So that, I would trust, would be more than two years, because there is no point giving a two year commitment at this stage of a cycle. So the discussions that I'm having with Adrian, with other school ministers around the country and with, of course, the rest of the non government school sector are about what type of models will work for the future but it's not just about the quantum of money. it's got to be how that is used

TONY JONES: Sure, can I just say, just to the Gonski funding model, which the deal is to reduce inequity in public schools, do you get the sense, from what you're hearing from another Liberal Education Minister here in New South Wales, that it is working?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, Adrian would want me to correct the record. He is a National Party Minister. But, look, I can see that it is making a difference in some schools, absolutely. Now, of course, it is early days in terms of extra money flowing from this program, but what seems to be the message I'm getting from Adrian and from the school I visited today is that in those schools what's happening is the principals have got more autonomy. The principals are having greater capacity to be able to direct money to student need within those schools and, yes, I want to see school funding that is needs based, that directs greater resources to students with a disability, that directs greater resources to students from Indigenous backgrounds who have great areas of disadvantage or every other category of need that we should consider in terms of how funding is structured.

TONY JONES: Simon, can I just go back to our questioner. Lila, you’re the principal of Merrylands High.

LILA MULARCZYK: Correct.

TONY JONES: What would the Minister see if he went to your school? What would you show him?

LILA MULARCZYK: He would actually see a number of great improvements over the last two years. We have additional expert staff that are working with children that are in need, some that you have just listed off there, many who have had broken educational histories. They need support. We have staff that work with refugee background students to help them. The attendance is improving, engagement and I could rattle off a whole lot of statistics now, I won't do that. But, certainly, in two years we have seen a significant change for the better for many of our students, and I look forward to that continuing post 2017 because it is life changing.

TONY JONES: Okay. Well, I’ll go back to the Minister on that specific question. So post 2017 is when the funding ramps up. You’re going to have to spend a lot more money on it. So do you think if the model works that is a good idea to spend money on education in that way and the amounts that Gonski sort of set out so that you can actually reduce inequity in public schools?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, I think that, like everything we should do in government, it should be evidence based and when it comes to school funding that should be based on evidence as well, and if we are able to build a good case of evidence, in terms of the fact that principals with greater autonomy are using this money in a wise way, that is targeted to needs and is lifting student outcomes, then that, of course, helps to that make it easier to ensure that after 2017 we actually do get a long, steady program of school funding that helps to build on that program and that's what I would hope that we’re able to do. I will happily make sure that on the next visit that I have some time in New South Wales. Merrylands high school, is it?

LILA MULARCZYK: It is.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: That’s right: Merrylands High School? We’ll make that the next visit in New South Wales, if it's humanly possible, and you can talk us through what's happening there so that, when I go back to the Cabinet table to talk about school funding from 2018 onwards let's understand it's all locked in and guaranteed right through to the end of 2017, so we've got a couple of years to get through yet, but when we get to 2018 onwards, we are able to actually have the discussion beforehand about where it's making a difference, how it's making a difference, and that, of course, can inform then how you apply funding models in the future to make sure that they work the best for student outcomes.

TONY JONES: All right. Tony Burke, are you sensing a different tone again from the new Government on this issue?

TONY BURKE: Well, it’s a different tone and hopefully the actions follow through. I mean, on Gonski, my advice is do it. You know, you are talking about every time this is delayed, you get a generation of kids with disadvantage who don't get the resources they need. And, yeah, you can always run an argument and say, "Oh, well, look, money is not the only issue.” That's true, but what school has been able to lift itself out without resources being part of it?

WENDY HARMER: I tell you money is an issue at my kids’ public school. We had to have a trivia night to raise money for a twin flush dunny. That’s what money - this sophistry about, oh, I’m not sure that money really works. Money works, you know.

TONY BURKE: For everything that is said, you go back to the budget papers. Gonski was fully funded. The savings were there. The pathway was there. It was all fully funded right through beyond the first four years. It’s there in the budget papers.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: That's just not true, Tony.

TONY BURKE: It's there in the budget papers.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: No.

TONY BURKE: You can go through and say oh, no, it’s not in the budget papers and no one is going to pull them out of the pocket. Can I just say, Gonski was fully funded. It changes the lives of young students. It’s the investment in your kids future. Do it! Do it!

(MULTIPLE PEOPLE TALK AT ONCE)

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: No, Tony, can I get one clarity from you? So, Tony, one point of clarification. You’re the Shadow Finance Minister. Now, Bill Shorten and Kate Ellis, over the last few weeks, have not given straight answers to this question at their press conferences. Will the Labor Party commit to funding Gonski 2017/2018 as you are calling on us to do so?

TONY BURKE: We’re in the process now of having to come up with new funding mechanisms to do it.

TONY BURKE: No, no, no. Be in no doubt and we made commitments about Gonski funding at our national conference. The exact - the exact revenue measures for it...

TONY JONES: But can you just say yes to that particular question?

TONY BURKE: We are committed to the Gonski principles. Yes, we are committed to the Gonski principles.

TONY JONES: And the Gonski funding?

TONY BURKE: Yes, we are committed to the funding that delivers the Gonski principles. The timing of how we do it...

TONY JONES: Why was it so hard to get you to say that?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: And I'm still not sure.

TONY BURKE: No, no, no, because - no, simply because...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: It still had a caveat on the end.

TONY BURKE: Simply because some of the revenue measures to pay for it - some of the revenue measures to pay for it that we had in Labor's Budget, the Government has kept those revenue measures and applied them to other things and said, "But Gonski is now gone." So we now need to find...

TONY JONES: Yes, but if this were your major priority, then you’d find the money, wouldn't you?

TONY BURKE: Yeah, which we did and we’re...

TONY JONES: And find it again.

TONY BURKE: And we be at a new election within 12 months and we are committed to Gonski.

TONY JONES: And you’re going to find - okay, all right. Well, I think we got an answer eventually.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: I’m not so sure but I hope so.

TONY JONES: You’re watching Q&A. It’s time to move along. It’s time to move along. The next question comes from Ivy Chung.

BAMBOO CEILINGIVY CHUNG: My question is with surveys show that only 18% of Asian talent feel their workplace is free of cultural biases and stereotypes. When, what does Asia mean for Australia? When will the Australian workforce get serious about promoting a truly merit based culture rather than a culture that is based on skin colour?

TONY JONES: Dai Le?

DAI LE: Thanks, Ivy, for that question. Yes, look, that’s something that, at DAWN, what we’re trying to do in trying to drive that conversation around the need for mainstream institutions from Parliament to corporate, public service, to look at the talent they have within the organisation and provide them with training and leadership capability to step up to leadership roles. Look, it’s very similar to the gender debate, the gender push, whereby we want to see more women, you know, on boards in the top ASX companies. I think what we are trying to do through DAWN is to say, look, you know, gender and cultural diversity and, I think, inclusiveness is the key word here, so that everybody and, you know, within an organisation, within Australia, can actually grow and prosper. Now, 10% of the population in Australia are of Asian heritage. Being an Asian, of course I want to, you know, promote that, but I'm sure our institutions do not reflect - the leadership of our institutions do not reflect what we have - the population in our society. So I think it's very important, and especially with Australia in the Asian Century, as we've had many papers around that, we need to actually build the capability.

TONY JONES: And another key word "targets", are you interested in seeing targets?

DAI LE: Look, I think we definitely have to set a target and I know that in New South Wales that at the last our Treasurer, Gladys Berejiklian, set a target for women to enter Parliament, and I think it's - but obviously I don't you know, when you set the target, the argument comes forward with the issue of merit. Now, I don't buy the merit debate anymore because I think that we are not calling to appoint somebody who is incapable of doing the job. There are many capable women, men of diverse background, of Asian background who actually can lead, can run an organisation, can be a CEO, can be a CFO, CMO, and so I think target is probably the way to achieve the outcome we need.

WENDY HARMER: Well, I think very much we want to see the Government take a lead in this. I mean, the Government has to really, if we’re talking quotas anywhere, it's got to be within government, I think, first. We have to have the diversity. We have to have the jobs for people with a disability and we have to have more women in government and then I think private enterprise can take the queue from that. I think, actually, that you might be just perfect for a little job that is vacant at the moment, which is the Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner and I think our Disability Commissioner, I think that job is vacant, too, Simon.

TONY JONES: Simon, are Asian people underrepresented in Australian politics, in Australian life, in Australian business generally?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Yes. Yes. You would have to say, yes, particularly if you look at political representation, there are far smaller numbers of representatives of Asian background than there are others across the Australian political spectrum, and probably the same at the top levels of business. I haven't done the stats there, but I suspect that's right, intuitively, then I think you see a lot of very successful Asian people getting to senior middle management and management roles but not necessarily filling the CEO spots. And so there is something for us to make sure we do better at. Now, I think some of that comes with time and, of course, we now have far more second and even third generation Asian migrants coming through in involvement in all walks of life and that, of course, will, I suspect, see many greater breakthroughs. We have very old, significant role models like Victor Chang in this city who, of course, were trailblazers in terms of demonstrating to Australians what it is that Asian Australians have to offer and what it is, of course, that they add to the great multicultural success I was talking about before of our country.

TONY JONES: Simon, I am just going to interrupt you, because there’s a questioner with his hand up. Go ahead.

QUESTION FROM THE FLOORAUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. I'm an international student myself and I've been in Australia for a couple of years now and, in fact, I've met Minister Birmingham at a couple of conferences before and recently at the Australian International Education Conference. Now, I think, you know, the reasons why we are talking about this issue is because we love Australia. You know, we want to have a very diverse Australia, but I guess, you know, we are focusing too much on the differences instead of the similarities. Because for an international student, for example, the reason why they choose to come to study in Australia and I can say that on behalf of the hundreds and thousands of international students out there, is because we love Australia and I think for me personally, you know, the Australian education system has transformed my life and I've learnt a lot throughout these years at well. So I really appreciate it, but I think the focus here is that we should be talking about similarities, talking about Australia as one nation, a nation that is built upon immigration rather than, you know, the differences and other things that we have been talking about.

TONY BURKE: With all due respect to my own ethnicity, Australia has too many white male clubs, far too many white male clubs, and for different areas, there are different ways of smashing them open. But as long as you believe that merit is not gender based or ethnic based then, at the moment, what we see across the board is not merit. It can't be. It can’t be merit.

DAI LE: No. Look, I mean, you know, when people put - give me the argument about merit, I say I can assure you, if you look at our especially look at our parliaments, a lot of the males that are in there did not get their based on merit. I can guarantee you that. And that said, I don't want it to be pitted against men and women or Asian against white Australians. I think what we need to talk about is an embracing Australia, and who - and as you are right, Wendy, and our political leaders need to take a lead in this. And I know that in the party we talk about reform in the Liberal Party and, for me, I think we need to stop talking about oh, we need to increase diversity, we need to do this. We actually have to say, okay, this is how we are going to do it. If there is a safe seat, let's put a woman in there and, you know, let's then give an opportunity to a woman of or a man of a different ethnic background to run for a seat. And I think the Labor Party did that with Jihad Dib in New South Wales.

WENDY HARMER: What about you for did you miss out on Joe Hockey's seat?

PAUL EHRLICH: I have some special expertise here. First of all, I was born in an incredibly racist nation and I'm still in a racist nation but not as incredibly so as it was once.

TONY JONES: With a black President.

PAUL EHRLICH: That's right, and my technical training, of course, and research area is evolution and genetics and I can tell you this: that is if you’re discriminating by gender, by colour, by race, any of that stuff, you’re wasting your time and you’re being inefficient. There is not the tiniest shred of evidence that any group of people so classified has characteristics that makes them better to be executives, to be airplane pilots, to be prized fighters or anything else. There is just no evidence at all for racism or sexism and if you are practising that, you’re hurting your country. It’s that simple.

TONY JONES: Does the America experience tell you that quotas or targets is the way to redress the problem?

PAUL EHRLICH: There are a lot of things we try and change in society, sometimes, for instance, starting with a law that is unpopular will lead that to becoming a norm in the society. A good example is smoking. In the United States, the first anti smoking laws were very unpopular. Now, try lighting up most places in the United States, you will see it has become a norm. So all of those things have to be looked at by people who are trying very hard to change things in the right direction. Try it. See if it works. If it doesn't work, change it.

TONY JONES: Okay. We’ve got time for one last question tonight. It comes from Ken Silburn.

OUR PANEL’S SCHOOL DAYS KEN SILBURN: Thanks, Tony. Just for the panel. We've all been to school and probably had good memories or bad memories. What do you think about your school and how it prepared you for what you are doing now, and what would you like for your kids?

TONY JONES: Simon, I will start with you as the Education Minister. Did you have a favourite teacher, for example?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, I better give a shout out to Miss Cornsmith, my geography teacher in my final years, who I haven’t seen for many years. I have no idea where she, but hello. Hell, Miss Cornsmith.

TONY JONES: Did she tell you which is the safest seat to go for?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Geography, not politics. But, so my school, Gawler High School on Adelaide's northern suburbs, sort of semi-rural area was a great environment to grow up in because it was part of a market gardening district that had second generation Italian and Greek migrants at the school, first generation Vietnamese migrants at the school, a really good melting pot in an area of Adelaide that is far from socially advantaged or economically advantaged, I should say. Socially I think it is very advantaged in many instances, with that semi-rural area. So, for me, I think it was partly, largely perhaps a cultural experience but school, of course, gave me much of the confidence to do what I do today, to be able to sit here and talk to all of you, to understand many of the issues that I deal with, to have an interest in public policy issues all of those types of things. But I think, in many ways, you hope and trust that everybody who leaves school ticks enough of the academic boxes. It is the other boxes that you want to make sure people have as well, in terms of being good, rounded citizens who want to contribute to society in whatever way they choose. My school did well there, I like to think.

TONY JONES: Okay. We’ll get the other panellists to just be a little more concise. Wendy Harmer.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: I’m Education Minister. I am meant to be passionate about this topic.

WENDY HARMER: You didn’t leave much to me. Well, I grew up in schools of course. I started my first school I was actually in my bassinette because my dad was a rural schoolteacher and so I grew up in school and I loved going to school. I just wish for every child that they don't have a parent who is the headmaster. It's a tough life.

TONY JONES: Well, Wendy, my dad was a mathematics master. I'm not sure if that's a lot better in terms of credibility, but I tell you what, he was a very good one.

WENDY HARMER: My dad was a fantastic teacher. I wish for every kid that they could have a teacher who was as brilliant as my father.

TONY JONES: Yeah, I would agree with that. Tony Burke.

TONY BURKE: Yeah, mum was a teacher, too, but there you go. I had an English teacher who told me that he read a poem out loud every day, which I've continued to do ever since I was 18. And even no matter how busy you are, you can always just take that moment of fiction which, yeah, has had a massive impact on me. For my kids, the thing that I'm happy about is they've all gone to schools where they have been an ethnic minority, particularly through primary school, and been surrounded in that multicultural Sydney where you grow up knowing that you are a citizen of the entire world.

TONY JONES: Dai Le

DAI LE: I went to a Catholic all-girls school and Sister Christine, I remember Sister Christine, because English obviously wasn't my first language, so I had to learn English. Coming from a dysfunctional family, I had no support whatsoever, so Sister Christine was somebody that I turned to and I learnt how to speak and spell - well, I became a top speller by the time I got to Year - well, I started school at year five, so by the time I got to year six, I was the top speller. But, you know, obviously the Catholic upbringing and Sister Christine driving me probably it’s given me that drive today to set up what I'm setting up is to provide support for young, you know, migrant and refugee kids who don't have that support or mentorship at home or at school so.

TONY JONES: Paul Ehrlich, I was trying to do a count back as to which decade that you went to school. Would I be wrong in saying it was the 1930s?

PAUL EHRLICH: Yeah, I started in the '30s, which was a time when lynchings were still going on, when it was really a nasty country, but I was extraordinarily lucky. My mother got a college degree. She was born in 1907 and she became a--

TONY JONES: It must have been quite unusual?

PAUL EHRLICH: Yeah, very unusual. She was a Greek and Latin teacher and I refused, as a good teenage boy, to learn either. I just would have nothing do with it. But they were able to live in an area which had good schools and had enough money to send me to college, and the idea that, for instance, somebody like me could be a self-made man, is just nonsense. In other words, when you hear about all these people that rose many presidential candidates actually were helped along the way, I could never have accomplished anything like what I have accomplished if it hadn't been for my parents and for the fact that I was able to go to good schools and that’s an absolutely - there is nothing more important than educating your kids properly and, hopefully, equitably.

TONY JONES: Okay. I don’t want to embarrass our questioner, Ken Silburn, up there but he is, in fact, a highly regarded teacher. I know from what I've heard about you that you've received quite a few awards for your teaching. We thank you again for your question.

KEN SILBURN: Thank you. Can I just make one note? When we were talking about multiculturalism in schools, our school, when we sing the national anthem, it's like being at the football. It is a song which we take pride in, so it's nice that it’s on the debate.

TONY JONES: Thank you, Ken. That's all we have time for tonight. Please thank our panel: Wendy Harmer, Simon Birmingham, Paul Ehrlich. Dai Le and Tony Burke. Thank you very much. Next Monday we have a very edition of Q&A. Speaking at the Wheeler Centre's Di Gribble Argument last week, Andrew Denton made the case for voluntary assisted dying. Well, next Monday we’ll test those arguments when he joins palliative care specialist Ralph McConaghy; doctor and author Karen Hitchcock, who both oppose euthanasia; Victorian doctor Rodney Syme, who for 25 years has been helping terminally ill patients who want to end their lives; and Ana Lamaro, a woman with terminal cancer, who is determined to have a good and conscious death without euthanasia. Until next week’s challenging Q&A, goodnight.

Dr Paul Ehrlich is Bing Professor of Population Studies, President of the Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biology, Stanford University and Adjunct Professor, University of Technology, Sydney. He does research in population biology (includes ecology, evolutionary biology, behavior, and human ecology and cultural evolution).

Paul has carried out field, laboratory and theoretical research on a wide array of problems ranging from the dynamics and genetics of insect populations, studies of the ecological and evolutionary interactions of plants and herbivores, and the behavioral ecology of birds and reef fishes, to experimental studies of the effects of crowding on human beings and studies of cultural evolution. He is heavily involved in the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere (MAHB -- http://mahb.stanford.edu/) and is author and coauthor of more than 1000 scientific papers and articles in the popular press and over 40 books.

Paul is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Entomological Society and the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, and a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. He is a Foreign Member of the Royal Society, an Honorary Member of the British Ecological Society and an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society.

Among his many other honors are the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Crafoord Prize in Population Biology and the Conservation of Biological Diversity (an explicit replacement for the Nobel Prize); a MacArthur Prize Fellowship; the Volvo Environment Prize; UNEP Sasakawa Environment Prize; the Heinz Award for the Environment; the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement; the Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences; the Blue Planet Prize; the Eminent Ecologist award of the Ecological Society of America, the Margalef Prize in Ecology and Environmental Sciences, and the BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Ecology and Conservation Biology.

Paul has appeared as a guest on more than 1000 TV and radio programs; he also was a correspondent for NBC News. He has given many hundreds of public lectures in the past 50 years.

Simon Birmingham has served as a Liberal Party Senator for South Australia since May 2007 and is now Minister for Education.

Educated at government schools in Adelaide, Simon attended Westbourne Park Primary, Angle Vale Primary and Gawler High before going on to study at the University of Adelaide where he completed a Masters of Business Administration.

Prior to entering the Senate Simon established particular experience in the wine, tourism and hospitality sectors, industries that are critical to South Australia's prosperity.

Simon has focused on issues associated with water security, environmental management and communications since entering the Senate, and in December 2009 was appointed Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Basin and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Action. Following the 2010 election Simon was re-appointed as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Basin and made Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment.

Simon also actively supports work to improve the lives of children throughout the world and is proud to be Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Association for UNICEF. Simon is married to Courtney, has a daughter Matilda and is an active supporter of the Adelaide Crows.

Tony Burke is the Shadow Finance Minister and Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives. Before the 2013 election he was the Minister for Immigration, having previously been Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. He had been a minister since Labor won government in 2007.

A National President of Young Labor in the 1980s, he graduated with an Arts-Law degree from the University of Sydney and in the mid-90s he became a founding director of a small business. In 1997 he began working for one of Australia's biggest unions, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association.

After a year in the NSW Legislative Council he entered Federal Parliament in 2004 and was immediately given a front-bench position by then leader Mark Latham as shadow minister for small business. He subsequently became Opposition immigration spokesman and entered Cabinet after Labor's election victory.

Wendy Harmer is one of Australia’s most versatile entertainers – broadcaster, author, journalist, publisher and stage performer. She was the co-founder and Editor In Chief of the online magazine The Hoopla.

As a stand-up comedian she performed her one-woman shows at the Melbourne, Edinburgh, Montreal and Glasgow Mayfest Comedy Festivals, in London’s West End and the Sydney Theatre Company. Wendy enjoyed huge popularity leading Sydney radio station 2Day FM’s top-rating Breakfast Show for 11 years and winning 84 of the 88 ratings surveys for that period. She has hosted, written and appeared in a variety of TV shows including ABC’s The Big Gig.

A former political journalist, Wendy is the author of eight books for adults including her best-selling novel Farewell My Ovaries, Love And Punishment and Nagging For Beginners, a how-to guide for women. Her most recent novel Friends Like These was published in April 2011. Her first teen novel I Lost My Mobile At The Mall was published in November 2009 with a sequel, I Made Lattes For A Love God published in October 2012.

The latest in Wendy's best-selling children's books Pearlie Goes to Rio will be released later this year and she is also the author of the Ava Anne Appleton series for young readers.

Stuff, a four-part television documentary series which Wendy produced, wrote and presented, premiered on ABC TV in March 2008. In late 2008 Wendy and Angela Catterns recorded a 16 part podcasting series for ABC Radio Local called Is It Just Me? which returned for a second season in 2009. Together they debated and discussed their observations and conclusions on everyday life. Wendy teamed up again with Angela Catterns on ABC News Radio with a new show called It’s News To Me, which recapped the week’s events. Wendy still works as a radio broadcaster for the ABC. She has been a columnist for Good Weekend, The Sunday Telegraph and many magazines. Wendy is also a regular columnist for Yours magazine.

Wendy is a member of the National People With a Disability and Carers’ Council and a patron of Interplast. Wendy and her husband live on Sydney’s Northern Beaches with their two teenage children, a tribe of chickens, too many brush turkeys and one very harrassed duck.

Dai Le is a former award-winning journalist, film-maker and broadcaster with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). In 2008 she stepped into the world of politics standing as a candidate in the NSW State seat of Cabramatta where she caused historic swings turning it into a marginal seat.

In September 2012 Dai was elected as Councillor to Fairfield City Council. She is passionate about increased representation of Asian Australian and cultural diverse men and women in mainstream institutions and was named an Australian Financial Review - Westpac Top 100 Women of Influence in 2014.

Dai is the Founder of DAWN (Diverse Australasian Women’s Network), an organisation that champion diverse leadership beyond gender. DAWN’s vision is to grow culturally diverse leadership across our mainstream institutions.DAWN started a signature series of Asian Australian Leadership Conversations in partnership with the Ethics Centre, and the Asian Australian Lawyers Association, to explore the whole notion of leadership, the barriers and opportunities for Australians of culturally diverse backgrounds.

She is currently on the Advisory Board of Multicultural NSW, Global Sisters (a not-for-profit start-up that focuses on building economic independence among migrant and refugee women) and STARTTs - the NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors.

Dai was born in Saigon, Vietnam and spent years in refugee camps in South East Asia before being accepted for resettlement in Australia, arriving with her mother and two younger sisters in December 1979. She is also a breast cancer survivor.